This requires an understanding of the factors that contribute to adaptation processes in practice; we need to understand what works (or not), in which contexts and why. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) can play a critical role in improving this understanding by providing the evidence and experience that can improve future practice. M&E can help to avoid costly maladaptation and learn more quickly how the most catastrophic impacts of climate change can be avoided.

Thank you very much for that great webinar. My Question relates to the presentation from Ms Schmidt. Could you please name the exact legal basis (like the name of the document) for the risk assessment and (self) assessment of the risk management, which the member states are supposed to develop and hand in to the commission?

“Mainstreaming of climate change adaptation into tourism strategies on national and provincial level” Sector: Tourism: The indicators shows if existing strategies for tourism address the issue of climate change, for example, less snow in winter tourism, increased heat days in cities etc.

Example of a mixed method indicator: “Proportion of people living in floodplain unaware of being at flood risk” Sector: Health and Resilient communities: The indicator shows the percentage of people living in areas at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea. A percentage of people is assigned to categories: definitely at risk; possibly at risk; not all at risk; don’t know.

In the beginning you referred to the Theory of Change as a method for M&E in BRACED – would this also be a good method to support M&E of national policies as social change is also important for NAS evaluation which should build on social change at lower admin levels and in sectors?